OBJECTIVE: We present the first cases of our robotic radical prostatectomy with Da Vinci (RRPdaV) that corresponds to the learning curve (LC) of the surgeon that has initiated with this technique. METHODS: We reviewed the first 20 patients that underwent RRPdaV, performed by an expert surgeon, without previous laparoscopic training, but with a wide experience in retropubic and perineal prostatectomy (HV). We analyzed: Surgical time, blood loss, conversion rate, intra and postoperative complications, hospital stay and days of bladder catheterization. Also: rates and location of surgical margins, as well as functional outcomes with an average follow up of 10 months. RESULTS: Mean operating time was 140 minutes (100-211) and blood loss 180 mL (80-360), and none required a blood transfusion. There were no intraoperative complications and neither any conversion to open surgery. The only postoperative outstanding fact was mean hospital stay were 3,35 days. (3-5). We had 6 cases of positive surgical margins (30%). The most frequent location was postero-lateral. Eighteen out of 20 patients (90%) were early totally continent, 2 (10%) required the use of one pad during the first six months due slight stress incontinence that stopped spontaneously. From 20 cases, two of them (10%) had preoperative erectile dysfunction; 12 out of the remaining 18 (66.6%) preserved potency at review and 6 (33.4%) had postoperative erectile dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: It has been demonstrated that robotic surgery for radical prostatectomy is clearly an advantage technique (easy maneuver although it is a minimally invasive technique, comfortable and ergonomic position for the surgeon, 3D visualization and short learning curve). The RRPDAv learning curve is significantly shorter if the surgeon has a wide previous surgical experience in open and/or laparoscopic surgery.
OBJECTIVE: We present the first cases of our robotic radical prostatectomy with Da Vinci (RRPdaV) that corresponds to the learning curve (LC) of the surgeon that has initiated with this technique. METHODS: We reviewed the first 20 patients that underwent RRPdaV, performed by an expert surgeon, without previous laparoscopic training, but with a wide experience in retropubic and perineal prostatectomy (HV). We analyzed: Surgical time, blood loss, conversion rate, intra and postoperative complications, hospital stay and days of bladder catheterization. Also: rates and location of surgical margins, as well as functional outcomes with an average follow up of 10 months. RESULTS: Mean operating time was 140 minutes (100-211) and blood loss 180 mL (80-360), and none required a blood transfusion. There were no intraoperative complications and neither any conversion to open surgery. The only postoperative outstanding fact was mean hospital stay were 3,35 days. (3-5). We had 6 cases of positive surgical margins (30%). The most frequent location was postero-lateral. Eighteen out of 20 patients (90%) were early totally continent, 2 (10%) required the use of one pad during the first six months due slight stress incontinence that stopped spontaneously. From 20 cases, two of them (10%) had preoperative erectile dysfunction; 12 out of the remaining 18 (66.6%) preserved potency at review and 6 (33.4%) had postoperative erectile dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: It has been demonstrated that robotic surgery for radical prostatectomy is clearly an advantage technique (easy maneuver although it is a minimally invasive technique, comfortable and ergonomic position for the surgeon, 3D visualization and short learning curve). The RRPDAv learning curve is significantly shorter if the surgeon has a wide previous surgical experience in open and/or laparoscopic surgery.